Glimmer of hope over this Heathrow shambles

Yet another review and yet another new minister – but at least we are
now travelling in the right direction
.

'At a time when growth is elusive, the economic argument for increasing our capacity to trade with the world by increasing the ability of our only hub airport, Heathrow, to compete is compelling.'Photo: Reuters

In the Good Old Days, way back in history (1990), when Google was not even a glint in Silicon Valley’s eye, the French still had the franc and Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini was about to take the crown as the world’s most irritating No.1, a certain Patrick McLoughlin had a few words of wisdom to share on Heathrow.

“I’m afraid I cannot say that I can wholly rule out Heathrow,” he told the House of Commons in July that year, more than 20 years ago.

“If I did that, my honourable friends who have spoken on behalf of other areas would ask me wholly to rule out their airports as well. That is not the way forward. The way forward is to do as the Government has done — to set up a working group.”

Even then, MPs could not hide their mirth as the then aviation minister announced yet another commission to look at airport capacity in the south east of England. (How does a bureaucrat respond to a light at the end of the tunnel? Build more tunnel.) The government, whether Labour or Conservative, has been holding reviews into lack of airport capacity since the Second World War.

Mr McLoughlin has travelled full circle and is now the new Transport Secretary with responsibility for, you guessed it, airports and yet another review. In the interim, official policy on expansion has moved precisely nowhere.

Related Articles

The latest review panjandrum will be Sir Howard Davies, the former Financial Services Authority chairman, who has been given the highly pressurised deadline of 2015 to come up with yet another set of options. As Sir Philip Green said when asked to look at how government operates in comparison with the private sector, if you ran a business like this, you would be bust by now.

The Government’s paralysis on airport expansion has become a totemic issue, a yardstick by which businesses judge the Government’s attitude to making the big decisions that can change the country’s trajectory. At a time when growth is elusive, the economic argument for increasing our capacity to trade with the world by increasing the ability of our only hub airport, Heathrow, to compete is compelling.

But even if you do not agree with a controversial third runway and want to press the case for a multi-billion-pound leap in the dark with a new airport in the Thames estuary, a decision of whatever hue is better than no decision at all.

I suppose progress of sorts has been made. When this newspaper first started calling for a change of tack on Heathrow and revealed business agitation for expansion last year, the debate was said to be “closed” and we were criticised for attempting to resurrect a corpse. The Coalition had made its position clear — no new runway, no expansion in the south east — and that was that.

Thankfully, we have come a long way since then. Justine Greening has rightly beenremoved as Transport Secretarybecause her local political needs (she is MP for Putney in south west London, directly beneath one of Heathrow’s main flight paths) clashed unsustainably with the requirement to take decisions based on the national interest. She lasted just 10 months.

The Treasury has also let it be known that it is warming to the idea of Heathrow expansion as the most practical option. Recently, the Prime Minister has not exactly been trumpeting his former loudly expressed position against more runways.

That is all to the good, and one must hope that sense will finally prevail in this saga that has lasted longer than it took America to send a man to the Moon.

The battle is now three-sided. Supporters of expansion at Heathrow must make a grass roots economic case for the airport, focusing on the thousands of jobs and considerable economic muscle having a world-recognised hub airport close to the capital brings. The debate is between Heathrow or a wholly new airport east of London. The two cannot co-exist, and if the Government goes east, Heathrow will ultimately close.

Second, the environmental case against expansion (both noise and CO₂ emissions) needs to be examined. By the time any new runway is built, what type of modern, quiet, bio-fuel-burning aircraft will be in operation?

Third, the Thames estuary airport lobby should be required to deal with the connected issues of deliverability and safety. As Nats, the UK’s commendable air-traffic-control agency, has pointed out, there has been little practical discussion of flight routes over the Thames estuary, which are uncomfortably close to those approaching Schiphol. As one of the UK’s main competitors on the Continent, do not expect too much help from the Netherlands on changing approach patterns over the North Sea.

Going back to 1990, Mr McLoughlin appears to be well aware of the arguments against. “The CAA [Civil Aviation Authority] advised last July that its own experience suggested that the development of a major airport on a completely new site in the south east was unlikely to be either a realistic or an acceptable option,” he said at the time.

“We agreed with that view, and so did not ask the authority to extend its airspace studies to cover this.”

Let us hope Mr McLoughlin remembers his sensible opinions and sticks to them.

When he was asked by Cecil Parkinson, then Transport Secretary, to take up the transport brief, he replied: “Cecil, I’ve got two problems with this. I’ve got the most landlocked constituency in the United Kingdom, and I’m afraid of flying.” It is to be hoped that Mr McLoughlin is not afraid of making brave decisions on expansion.

Shotgun marriage

Scene: A chapel in Zug, Switzerland, where guests have gathered to witness the union of Ivan Glasenberg and Mick Davis. Soothing music plays as the men enter under an arc of crossed mining supports.

Vicar, Mr Take Overpanel:Do you, Mick Davis, take thee, Ivan Glasenberg, to be your wedded partner in a merger of equals?

Mr Davis: I do.

Mr Glasenberg:And so do I. Come on, come on, get on with it, we’ve been planning this for years. Talk about a long courtship. Good grief.

Vicar:Does anyone here present know of any earthly reason why this holy merger should not proceed?

Investors (in chorus):WE DO!

Mr Glasenberg:OK, OK, there will be more champagne at the reception and you can have a bit more of my house if you give your blessing.

Investors (in chorus):OK! We’ll think about it!

Mr Glasenberg:But I’m the boss, right? Mr Davis has to stay at home and keep quiet.

Mr Glasenberg leaves the chapel with Mr Davis locked in the boot of the wedding Roller.